Atheism illogical?

[Isambard]

Assuming that your “earlier writings attributed to the Buddha” refers to the Pali Cannon, then you are mistaken. Gods appear but again are of very little importance. For example in the Kevatta sutta (Digha Nikaya 11) the gods are unable to answer a question:"When this was said, the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings said to the monk, ‘We also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there are the Four Great Kings who are higher and more sublime than we. They should know where the four great elements… cease without remainder.’

"So the monk approached the Four Great Kings and, on arrival, asked them, ‘Friends, where do these four great elements… cease without remainder?’

"When this was said, the Four Great Kings said to the monk, ‘We also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there are the gods of the Thirty-three who are higher and more sublime than we. They should know…’

"So the monk approached the gods of the Thirty-three and, on arrival, asked them, ‘Friends, where do these four great elements… cease without remainder?’

"When this was said, the gods of the Thirty-three said to the monk, 'We also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there is Sakka, the ruler of the gods, who is higher and more sublime than we. He should know… ’

"So the monk approached Sakka, the ruler of the gods, and, on arrival, asked him, ‘Friend, where do these four great elements… cease without remainder?’

"When this was said, Sakka, the ruler of the gods, said to the monk, ‘I also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there are the Yama gods who are higher and more sublime than I. They should know…’…

[Many gods do not know as far as the Great Brahma]

"So the monk approached the Great Brahma and, on arrival, said, ‘Friend, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?’

"When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, ‘I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.’

…

"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, ‘These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, “There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized.” That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.’
Typically for a Buddhist sutta there are many gods and all of them are inferior to the Buddha. The Buddha knows the answer to the question; the gods do not.

rossum

Hmm…

After reading a few articals on the subject, you seem to be correct.

My apologes

 

[R_McGeddon]

You ask, ‘just what is this “self-evident contradiction”’ ?
Can’t you see it? If there is no God then there are no absolutes.

Why do absolutes require a god to exist?

Therefore it is oxymoronic to make the absolute assertion that there is no God since the form of the assertion itself contradicts the expression and thus enters the realm of unprovable conjecture while also both illicitly entering into a realm that is itself non-concrete.

There you go again saying that atheists make assertions! Where’s your evidence to this effect?

Further observe the The free standing assertion made with out proof that “there is no God”

Again with these non-existent assertions. Who tells you that this is what atheists think?

can exist independent to the necessity for advocating its counter assertion “There is a God”. Therefor the Atheist is creating her own religious belief and asking, no demanding, we accept her faith while denying anyone else the right to accept the opposing faith of belief of God. That itself is intrinsically inconsistent, arbitrary and therefor irrational.

This entirely hinges on the assertions that you claim are made by atheists.

The difference for the believer in God is that they express their belief “there is a God” as an expression of faith and hope and based on preponderance of historical accounts and consistent inter-generational messages whose consistency is universal and whose probability for cooperative inter-generational conspiracy and fraud is so remotely distant that we have rational and plausible cause for reasonable doubt in favor of the assertion.

If the message is so consistent and universal, why are there so many different ideas about what God is and is not?

The Atheist can offer not one shred of concrete evidence to support their subjective assertion. Therefor it is nothing but opinion - and shown to be irrational opinion at that.

Tell me how something non-existent could leave evidence that it doesn’t exist?
Why the demand for evidence from atheists? You believe without evidence!

You ask, “how do you arrive at your wild ideas”?
Throwing insults, in mild or moderate manner, ‘does not validate your argument’, nor your assertions, nor lend itself to sincere and objective credibility.

You still didn’t say how you arrive at your wild ideas.

You state ‘There is no intrinsic assertion, atheists just don’t believe the assertion made by the religious’.
Are you a designated spokesperson for Atheists?

No I’m not! Have you been appointed to decide what atheism means?

Would Atheists not be Atheists if there were no religious?

Of course they wouldn’t, we would all be nonreligious

Or are you asserting that Atheists exist as some sort of parasitic creature that is dependent only through opposition to an opposing host view?

That is quite clearly your own assertion .

I think what you are asserting is personal opinion.

Do you not see the irony in your own statement?

I can do that as well.

It hadn’t gone unnoticed.

I invite you to consider without prejudice that my opinion is that Atheists believe what they want to believe and what they are comfortable believing independent of any consideration but their own self-centered view.

I can’t consider without prejudice, such an inaccurate opinion.

You believe ‘This is flawed because it relies on there being an assertion, as previously covered.’
As previously covered I reject your belief as flawed.

You assert and judge that ‘throwing insults does not validate your argument.’ This was answered and shown to be an inconsistent and hypocritical assertion. See above.

I have gone through this a paragraph at a time, and at no point was I successfully refuted.

You advise, “I would be wary of playing the insanity card in regards to atheism, while seriously believing that someone walked on water, fed 5,000 with a little bread and fish, rose from the dead etc.”

Your anonymous and singular advise is grossly outweighed by the testimony of many others who witnessed these things and died for refusing to rescind their witnessing of these occurrences.

The generations of handed down “witness testimony” would, at best, be unreliable. Ever heard of Chinese whispers?

Are you willing to put your life on the line to hold to your negative skepticism just as the believers were willing to hold to their positive belief?

Willingness to put my life on the line is irrelevant. Muslim fundamentalists willingly take their own lives and others quite regularly. It does not make their beliefs true either.

I would be wary of holding your own council as superior to anyone else’s.

This is exactly what you have been doing with your claimed atheist assertions.

In the face of the 11 million or so Christians who died as martyrs for their faith in these same messages during the early church formation your advise rings a few days late and is mute with regards to anything practical.

As I’ve already said, dying for your faith does not make that faith true.
Great numbers of people do not add credibility. How many saw Mark Kalin and Jinger Leigh make a jumbo jet disappear? What about the tricks David Blaine or any good magician does?

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Given that subjective nature of spiritual experiences, you’d be hard-pressed it has any relation to an objective truth.

That said, you statement is demonstrably false. See Buddhism for details.

Subjective spiritual experiences point to the objective truth that as humans we are created mater and spirit. I thing someone else pointed out your mistake about Buddhism so I do not have to repeat it here.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Why do absolutes require a god to exist?

If there is no genesis to anything then there is no super-class or locus to root any hiearchy relationship that cooperatively orders all things. This sad condition would imply a pure-chaotic universal system or a predominantly chaotic universal system or else a condition of nothingness. We can discount the latter by observing that most people accept the terminal outcome from Descartes’ famous theory that by thinking we can prove “we exist” (from his famous assertion “I think therefor I am” expression without necessarily accepting the means by which we arrived at the conclusion). Note too that with no super-class to anchor universal order this leaves all things unconstrained by anything but self interest (assuming a rational and benevolent system) or forced spontaneously by a homogeneously distributed networked benevolence (exceedingly improbably given the uncountable entity relationships existing in the aether of the ever expanding universe taken from the lowest subatomic entity to galactic cosmological entities). There are observed in nature however a minority of stochastic processes within the general substratte of a predominant controlling natural order. Note as an aside that this observed phenomena actually gives creedance to the theological validity of the notion of Good and Evil. But since we observe (as far as we can trust or senses) a predominantly highly ordered universe, the opposite condition to pure or predominant chaos is easily dismissed. This all taken together gives a plausible creedance but not a proof of a primal preexisting super-class that makes it possible for us to even have this discussion through ordered thought. Therefor since it has been proved possible to arrive at absolute agreements through rational discussions we can conclude that absolutes exist and that the predominant convention is that God is the root of all absolutes. But I suppose you will now disagree just to join the minority position of the stochastic in working counter to the natural order and attempt to bring disorder and work toward annihilating the universe?

There you go again saying that atheists make assertions! Where’s your evidence to this effect?

Let’s not be ridiculous shall we? Everyone knows what Atheists assert. Though atheists tend toward nihilism, anarchy and disorder will you permit me to admit the American Atheist org’s own assertions?

American Atheists: Coming Out - Atheism: The Other Closet

What is atheism?
The definition of an atheist is someone who is “without theism”. As atheists, we see God as a legend or fairy tale, and equate God with Santa Claus and Zeus. If you actively disbelieve that Santa and Zeus exist, yet can find no reason that God should be given more credibility (I certainly cannot), you are an atheist by most definitions.

Unless Atheists are still in the closet amusing themselves then this is the equivalent to saying publicly “There is no God.” Note, this is an assertion that does not even require a single person who believes in God.

Again with these non-existent assertions. Who tells you that this is what atheists think?

See above.

This entirely hinges on the assertions that you claim are made by atheists.

See above.

If the message is so consistent and universal, why are there so many different ideas about what God is and is not?

I spoke from a Christian context. These all believe in a single Divine God. Non-Christians believe in other forms of God. You will have to ask God why people always tend to see see any manner of things differently since I can’t speak for what others see. Do all Atheists “not see God” in the same way?

Tell me how something non-existent could leave evidence that it doesn’t exist?

This is a strawman. I am not the one asserting that there is a non-existent entity that leaves evidence. Are you asserting that you are an atheist or just expressing frustration that atheists can’t prove what they assert?

Why the demand for evidence from atheists? You believe without evidence!

I believe that I am addressing the original OP about atheists beeing illogical not my own personal beliefs so the emotion is not necessary nor productive. But I can understand your frustration if you are an atheist.

You still didn’t say how you arrive at your wild ideas.

Where did you get the wild idea that I have wild ideas? I do not admit I have wild ideas. This is a strawman.

No I’m not! Have you been appointed to decide what atheism means?

Is there a real dispute as to what it means? See my reference above. If I misrepresented what the general belief is then please point me to the spokesperson who can make an authoritative statement - as long as this person is not God…

Of course they wouldn’t, we would all be nonreligious

“ALL” sounds too much like God and religion to me. I bet some would change sides to become religious just to be contrarian.

That is quite clearly your own assertion .

No, it was a simple question - a different semantic altogether than an assertion.

Do you not see the irony in your own statement?

Honestly, no. Didn’t you see the irony? I wanted you to admit that all this comes down to unsubstantiated opinion and its illogical to try to compel me to accept your opinion over my own without evidence. If I can get you to admit that you are atheist then you have made my cases that Atheism is illogical. To end the OP I then only have to scale that to the general case of all atheists. Are you sure you are not a spokesperson for Atheists?

It hadn’t gone unnoticed.

Thanks for bearing with me. I think you are almost about to make my case again.

I can’t consider without prejudice, such an inaccurate opinion.
I have gone through this a paragraph at a time, and at no point was I successfully refuted.

This sounds like you are assessing accuracy from a subjective criteria. I accept that you are only human, fallable and have bias. If you can admit to fallibility can you also admit that its illogical for a fallible person to make attempt to make a universally infallible absolute assertion that there is no God? If so, I think you just made my point again and we can start a new OP.

The generations of handed down “witness testimony” would, at best, be unreliable. Ever heard of Chinese whispers?

Speculation. It is also illogical to assume that unreliable information is wrong information. Ever heard of dumb luck in a game with 50-50 odds? I think its more logical to error on the side of positive affirmation of the possibility of God existing as an agnostic rather than the double-00 of “no God” that atheists prefer to bet on. If they are right they have nothing to win. I won’t get into where that self-defeating thought can lead an atheist to.

Willingness to put my life on the line is irrelevant. Muslim fundamentalists willingly take their own lives and others quite regularly. It does not make their beliefs true either.

I finally see some merit here. But its not much. At the risk of getting off topic let me state that there is also the possibility of illogical (and insanity) behavior in those who believe in a God.

This is exactly what you have been doing with your claimed atheist assertions.

I have now provided a references to the assertions given.

As I’ve already said, dying for your faith does not make that faith true.
Great numbers of people do not add credibility. How many saw Mark Kalin and Jinger Leigh make a jumbo jet disappear? What about the tricks David Blaine or any good magician does?

Again I see merit here. But to sway my opinion and come to agreement you are going to have to come up with better evidence.

James

 

[Isambard]

Subjective spiritual experiences point to the objective truth that as humans we are created mater and spirit.

No it doesn’t as not everyone has them.

I thing someone else pointed out your mistake about Buddhism so I do not have to repeat it here.

That he did. It still doesn’t correct your assertion as there still exists “atheist religions”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

 

[R_McGeddon]

If there is no genesis to anything then there is no super-class or locus to root any hiearchy relationship that cooperatively orders all things. This sad condition would imply a pure-chaotic universal system or a predominantly chaotic universal system or else a condition of nothingness. We can discount the latter by observing that most people accept the terminal outcome from Descartes’ famous theory that by thinking we can prove “we exist” (from his famous assertion “I think therefor I am” expression without necessarily accepting the means by which we arrived at the conclusion). Note too that with no super-class to anchor universal order this leaves all things unconstrained by anything but self interest (assuming a rational and benevolent system) or forced spontaneously by a homogeneously distributed networked benevolence (exceedingly improbably given the uncountable entity relationships existing in the aether of the ever expanding universe taken from the lowest subatomic entity to galactic cosmological entities). There are observed in nature however a minority of stochastic processes within the general substratte of a predominant controlling natural order. Note as an aside that this observed phenomena actually gives creedance to the theological validity of the notion of Good and Evil. But since we observe (as far as we can trust or senses) a predominantly highly ordered universe, the opposite condition to pure or predominant chaos is easily dismissed. This all taken together gives a plausible creedance but not a proof of a primal preexisting super-class that makes it possible for us to even have this discussion through ordered thought. Therefor since it has been proved possible to arrive at absolute agreements through rational discussions we can conclude that absolutes exist and that the predominant convention is that God is the root of all absolutes. But I suppose you will now disagree just to join the minority position of the stochastic in working counter to the natural order and attempt to bring disorder and work toward annihilating the universe?

Nothing in here conclusively proves that absolutes require a deity.

Let’s not be ridiculous shall we? Everyone knows what Atheists assert. Though atheists tend toward nihilism, anarchy and disorder will you permit me to admit the American Atheist org’s own assertions?

American Atheists: Coming Out - Atheism: The Other Closet

What is atheism?
The definition of an atheist is someone who is “without theism”. As atheists, we see God as a legend or fairy tale, and equate God with Santa Claus and Zeus. If you actively disbelieve that Santa and Zeus exist, yet can find no reason that God should be given more credibility (I certainly cannot), you are an atheist by most definitions.

You evidently don’t know either. It is your own interpretation that without theism means there is no god. It is, nonetheless, an inaccurate interpretation.

Unless Atheists are still in the closet amusing themselves then this is the equivalent to saying publicly “There is no God.” Note, this is an assertion that does not even require a single person who believes in God.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that not believing in god, is stating that there is no god?

I can’t speak for what others see.

That hasn’t stopped you from putting your own spin on what atheists assert.

Do all Atheists “not see God” in the same way?

Probably not, just like all religious people see god differently.

This is a strawman. I am not the one asserting that there is a non-existent entity that leaves evidence.

You are misusing the term strawman and misquoting me.

Are you asserting that you are an atheist or just expressing frustration that atheists can’t prove what they assert?

I’m saying that atheists don’t believe what theists assert. That is hugely different from asserting: “There is no god”

Where did you get the wild idea that I have wild ideas? I do not admit I have wild ideas. This is a strawman.

I know what a strawman is, and this isn’t one.

Is there a real dispute as to what it means? See my reference above. If I misrepresented what the general belief is then please point me to the spokesperson who can make an authoritative statement - as long as this person is not God

There is no dispute, I know what atheism means, you don’t.

Honestly, no. Didn’t you see the irony? I wanted you to admit that all this comes down to unsubstantiated opinion and its illogical to try to compel me to accept your opinion over my own without evidence.

This cuts both ways.

If I can get you to admit that you are atheist then you have made my cases that Atheism is illogical.

I do lean towards atheism, but you certainly have not made any case that it is illogical.

To end the OP I then only have to scale that to the general case of all atheists.

So you admit that you’re making generalisations about atheists!

Thanks for bearing with me. I think you are almost about to make my case again.

You have no case.

This sounds like you are assessing accuracy from a subjective criteria. I accept that you are only human, fallable and have bias. If you can admit to fallibility can you also admit that its illogical for a fallible person to make attempt to make a universally infallible absolute assertion that there is no God?

Then it also follows that it is illogical for a fallible person, including the pope, to make the absolute assertion that there is a god.

Speculation. It is also illogical to assume that unreliable information is wrong information. Ever heard of dumb luck in a game with 50-50 odds? I think its more logical to error on the side of positive affirmation of the possibility of God existing as an agnostic rather than the double-00 of “no God” that atheists prefer to bet on. If they are right they have nothing to win. I won’t get into where that self-defeating thought can lead an atheist to.

Pascal’s wager doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, that’s why you won’t get into that.

I finally see some merit here. But its not much. At the risk of getting off topic let me state that there is also the possibility of illogical (and insanity) behavior in those who believe in a God.

You are the first religious person, in my experience, to admit that point. I have to give respect where it’s due.

Again I see merit here. But to sway my opinion and come to agreement you are going to have to come up with better evidence.

It is not my intention to sway your opinion, I only wanted to voice that I disagreed with what you thought atheists asserted.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Atheism and Buddhism however are not mutually exclusive as the earlier writings attributed to the Buddha say nothing of deities.

IMHO atheism tends to make “self” god. Also Buddhism does mention deities or gods as they understand them. Someone else pointed out your mistake about Buddhism and their beliefs in gods so I won’t have to repeat the reference here.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

No it doesn’t as not everyone has them.

And this is where you are wrong, we all have spiritual experiences. Every time you experience beauty, friendship and love these things are part of your spiritual side. Of course you can claim that all these are just chemical reactions in our brain, but then you will be making a leap of faith since science have not been able to explain why we all experience these things.

 

[Isambard]

And this is where you are wrong, we all have spiritual experiences. Every time you experience beauty, friendship and love these things are part of your spiritual side.

Ah, so by spiritual side, you mean emotion.

Of course you can claim that all these are just chemical reactions in our brain,

Thats one aspect of it as those who abuse drugs show us, altering their nerulogical patterns as well as their emotions.

but then you will be making a leap of faith since science have not been able to explain why we all experience these things.

And you just made a hasty generalization.

Classical conditioning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

Operant conditioning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

Lobotomy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

Castration
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Medical_consequences
etc.

Can all alter your “spiritual” side, and are a result of either a pyschological and/or physical manipulation.

Then there are those lacking said “spiritual” nature entirely.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

 

[CentralFLJames]

Nothing in here conclusively proves that absolutes require a deity.

Are you sure? Are you making a claim of infallability?

You evidently don’t know either. It is your own interpretation that without theism means there is no god. It is, nonetheless, an inaccurate interpretation.

In saying their assertions could be wrong are you admitting that Atheists are fallable? Please explain the logic by which a fallable person or group of persons sharing common belief can make absolute assertions while at the same time admitting they are fallable? This sounds illogical.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that not believing in god, is stating that there is no god?

For the sake of argument illustration, I temporarily extended the benefit of the doubt that the Atheist is rational and consistent. Under an assumption of rational thought (which admittedly does not seem too warranted) the semantics are nearly equivalent if not identical. Are you admitting that there are irrational Atheists who go about saying they do not believe in God while allowing for the possibility that there might be a God? I thought that was the difference between an atheist and an agnostics. Are you suggesting that Atheist are not closed to the notion that there is a God. If so, then why do they call themselves Atheists and not agnostics?

That hasn’t stopped you from putting your own spin on what atheists assert.

But it was positive spin to give the benefit of the doubt in the face of apparent irrational behavior. If Atheists want to reject that then they need to state what they all believe. How many do you imagine there are and will they all say the same thing?

Probably not, just like all religious people see god differently.

We can agree here. Some people have poorer vision than others.

You are misusing the term strawman and misquoting me.
I’m saying that atheists don’t believe what theists assert. That is hugely different from asserting: “There is no god”

I thought you just said to me that you were not a spokesperson for Atheists. Are you asserting things that are not held true by all atheists? I know some atheists who say “there is no God”. Are you calling them poorly educated atheists or false atheists? Who decides what an orthodox atheist says and thinks?

I know what a strawman is, and this isn’t one.

Should I take your word at it? I object anyway since I think it is.

There is no dispute, I know what atheism means, you don’t.

There you go making assertions again. It seems to me that atheist like to bandy about absolute statements. I thought you admitted to being fallable. How do I know that this is not the current case? Why not give me YOUR take on what atheism means?

This cuts both ways.

It may or may not. So…

I’m saying that atheists don’t believe what theists assert. That is hugely different from asserting: “There is no god”
I do lean towards atheism, but you certainly have not made any case that it is illogical.

You seem to have made that case for me already by asserting that Atheists do not believe what theists assert while admitting that theists say many contradictory things. A definition of atheistic belief formed around the negation of a pluralistic belief seems to be illogical. What do you assert that Theists assert?

So you admit that you’re making generalisations about atheists!

Are you admitting that people who call themselves Atheists all don’t believe that there is no God? Don’t you think its illogical for someone to call themselves an atheist if they believe in God?

You have no case.

I disagree.

Then it also follows that it is illogical for a fallible person, including the pope, to make the absolute assertion that there is a god.

That is faulty reasoning that does not follow. The form of the assertion takes on an absolute on the assumption that absolutes exist. It seems to me that atheists assert absolutes in relative terms (negation of other’s beliefs) on the assumption that there are no absolutes. That is illogical.

Pascal’s wager doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, that’s why you won’t get into that.

It is rational. Let’s get into it.
One must take a position in life. To believe and follow God or to not follow God (or perhaps vicariously by being an anti-Theist). One is forced to make an assumption that God may or may not exist whichever one’s private inclination (and calling if you are an orthodox Theist).

In accessing the wager and the size of “the pot” (the reward) it is clearly logical to bet a finite life that does not require but a ‘mild yoke to God’ on the outcome for an infinite reward. There is nothing to lose but reasonable moral restraint and commitment to certain prescribed values and lifestyle and subscription to certain dogmatic belief. The flip side of the coin is to not choose to believe in God and risk nothing for the hope that at best one wins nothing. But according to Theists (most anyway) you risk infinite punishment if you reject God. If that is a plausible or even distant likelihood then it seems that it would take a very illogical person to take the risk of infinite punishment or at best the risk of gaining nothing (oblivion) as a reward for doing nothing verses the potential to win infinite rewards for a rather small bet - being a good believer. The atheists therefor take the worst odds with the worst risk-reward which is another example of atheist’s illogical proclivities. The argument only falls apart if it turns out God exists and He is not benevolent and does not reward but only punishes; in which case we all lose equally and our life is irrelevant since the outcome is infinitely fatalistic and inevitable.

Given the values of the rewards and punishments, the option of living as if God exists (B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B). In other words, the expected value gained by choosing B is always greater than or equal to that of choosing ~B, regardless of the likelihood that God exists.

According to decision theory, the only value that matters in this decision is +∞ (heaven). Any matrix of the following type (where f1, f2, and f3 are all finite positive or negative numbers) results in (B) as being the only rational decision. More here: Pascal’s Wager

Please note that Pascal was not attempting to prove God exists rather, only the supreme folly and illogic of betting against the Theists. Since if the atheists is correct she gains nothing and checks out of life with no personal reward. Whereas if the Theists is correct and lives according to the proper formula they gain infinite reward and the anti-Theist (the Atheist) loses everything they had (life) as well as gains infinite punishment. It is illogical to be an atheist since the loss matrix is stacked against them in a way that proves them to be not only illogical but insane to remain an atheist.

You are the first religious person, in my experience, to admit that point. I have to give respect where it’s due.

I can not accept that merit since it gains me nothing in the next life and is of no consequence to me in this life except perhaps in gaining credibility for objectivity in persuading you to my assertion that atheists are illogical. Even in that persuasion it is really only intended as a means to get the atheist to become logical and consider that it is a much better position to be a Theist. Also note that my admission does not scale to all Theists I am just acknowledging that within the collection of Theists there are also irrational and illogical people who follow exotic beliefs. But it may very well be that logical and rational minds are not a prerequisite to gaining infinite rewards (e.g. the Catholic principal we call invincible ignorance which makes it nearly impossible for some people to gravely sin) and ironically may lead to higher probability of reward. This just adds more reasons to be on the “heads” side of the coin where one is betting that God exists rather than betting “tails” against those who play “heads” (and against God too if He exists).

It is not my intention to sway your opinion, I only wanted to voice that I disagreed with what you thought atheists asserted.

I accept that you do not agree with my opinion. But I think I have shown more cases for illogical attribution to atheists than you have for Theists. I really think that the final case is made here in atheists holding to a no-way-to-win bet with no compelling evidence or reason to do so.

How does one became a faithful atheist? What drives them?

James

 

[Awake]

Atheism is more logical than Catholicism. Just think of some of the fundamental teachings of Catholicism:

-The virgin birth
-Bread changes into the body of Jesus
-An all-powerful God listens to everybody’s prayers and chooses to grant some people’s wishes
-Spiritual (aka invisible) beings roam the earth helping and hurting people
-God speaks directly to very few people, often those who don’t appear to be mentally stable

How logical are these?

 

[nuntym]

I like this site pointed out by R McGeddon:

American Atheists: Coming Out - Atheism: The Other Closet

“Atheists believe in evolution, but that doesn’t answer as many questions as creationism”- Atheism is not a scientific theory, rather a lack of religion. We do believe in science, and that all questions will eventually be answered with science if they are not answered today, but we readily admit that not all answers are known to us right now. That is no reason, however, for inventing a fictional god to whom to give credit, especially when all it does is create more questions. Science has done well so far, giving theories regarding evolution, geological movement, and the Big Bang, all supported by evidence, but not necessarily endorsed by all atheists.

Now that’s a profession of faith, if I ever seen one

---

Anyways, to answer the original topic. Around 10 years ago, back in oh-so-liberal University of the Philippines, for so many reasons, most of which I could not even put into words no matter how I try, I became an atheist.

Well, it all lasted for one month. What I saw by then was that the atheist position is logical. VERY logical. The problem is that the logic becomes too logical, and logic becomes the only thing you have.

Look at what I lost when I became an atheist:

1. I lost one (or more, depending on how many gods I believe) BIG Someone to be thankful – or blame – for everything.
2. I lost the right to choose where I go eventually. As a theist, I can go to Heaven or to Hell, or to Purgatory, or to another someone when I reincarnate…depends on my belief. But as an atheist? I just embrace darkness when I die. Pfft, boring.
3. I lost the right to believe in something that cannot be proven. Of course, I hate to have the right to believe that 1+1=11, or that a circle has 10 sides, or other things to that effect, but the right to believe that there’s an angel on my right shoulder and a devil on my left, or not? I DEMAND that. I demand the right to believe that pigs can fly…eventually. That I can believe in Santa Claus when I want to, then disbelieve when I don’t…especially if I have been naughty. I demand I can believe a girl can have babies without having sex (oh yeah, we have artificial insemination…oh well). I demand that I can believe Someone out there listens to me when I am alone and distraught. I demand to believe that there is a Cause to everything, or not.
4. I lost the right to be loyal – or disloyal – to an Eternal Cause. Goodness! How romantic it is to be a loyal soldier to an Eternal General …and to be a rebel against a Cause greater than the universe!

In other words, I lost so much that to me were many things that made life worth living. All for logic.

And you know the funny thing is? When I truly embraced my Catholic heritage, especially its mysteries, I never lost my logic. In fact, it made logic oh so more worthwhile, and oh so more valuable. And, it made life oh so more worthwhile, and oh so more valuable.

I have so much to say, but I have to go. But the moral I gained in those roughly four weeks I will never forget, and I will share it with you — just in case you didn’t get what I want to drive at.

Whether atheism is logical or not is irrelevant, for logic can actually support both ways (theism and atheism, I mean). But to live for logic only, either as a theist or an atheist, is not a life worth living. But to be a mystic AND a logician…THAT is a life worth living. And a life worth living IS relevant.

 

[chaz0426]

Atheism is more logical than Catholicism. Just think of some of the fundamental teachings of Catholicism:

-The virgin birth
-Bread changes into the body of Jesus
-An all-powerful God listens to everybody’s prayers and chooses to grant some people’s wishes
-Spiritual (aka invisible) beings roam the earth helping and hurting people
-God speaks directly to very few people, often those who don’t appear to be mentally stable

How logical are these?

Atheism is completely sound and for the most part logical but has a fundamental flaw that I can’t grasp. Sure atheism has a sound stance and belief that follows logical regression based on science alone.

However in my opinion it misses the blatant obvious. The obvious when you look at a star filled sky at night. The obvious when you look at the mountains, the atmosphere, the trees, the animals, society, and most important US. Sure this could be the result of a completely random “spark” so to say. But where a fallacy and where it gets illogical is where did that spark come from? The logical path atheisim follows is contradicted in that “spark” or the big bang theory. Notice how when we get to the creation of the universe even through science, most of everything in that realm are still “theories” meaning “not proven”. And the illogical nature of atheism is coming from the fact how they believe things are a cause of a cause. However when we get to that “spark” what is the cause? We simply do not know. Even the big bang THEORY at the beginning is a complete mystery that may not even ever be proven at all. Thats why it’s illogical to believe that everything is a cause of a cause because it continues until infinity meaning it’s ever ending, well how believable is that? It’s logical that there is a “source of everything” and that is God.

My second argument is pure mathematics. When you look at everything today that is created. The perfection, the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, our physiology and even our psychology how could you believe that is a completely random event?

Ok, lets follow that that “spark” was just THERE it just happened out of the blue and caused all of this. What are the mathematical odds that the linear regression of universal creation led to a blue earth supported by rational and emotionaly intelligent beings? Odds of that spark spontaneously happening = very low
Odds of the first atoms forming into hydrogen, helium, and the rest of the elements in regression = extremely low
Odds of that forming stars and galaxies and planets = googolplex (10^10^100)

Get the idea, I could keep going into the formation of earths and intelligent beings but it would be really long.

Basically the odds are infinetly small of the reality that we know it being “spontaneous”

Sure maybe it could be but would it be logical to buy a lottery ticket worth your soul itself on an infinitely small number? Any true logical person wouldn’t. Not that you should believe in God just on that fact but by the fact that he delivered pure truth through his son 2000 years ago. Why do things have to be “proven” to believable. What is a world with no faith? Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? I haven’t, does that mean they don’t exist? No. Were you alive during the civil war? Well if you were then call the guinness group and get into the book. Because why do you have to “see” to believe.

Now to what you stated about our faith. I think you have a lot of misunderstandings in what we believe. And that is common. 5 years ago I was questioning the same things prior to confirmation. Is this right? How is this logical? How can that happen? Well are we suppose to know everything? We never will. We will never know 0.01% of the universe, it’s laws, everything.

The virgin birth: Can it be proven? It has in animals. In people no it can’t. But it’s reasonable to believe based on all biblical records mention it firmly. Wouldn’t it be logical to believe jesus was special if he was virgin born? Why would he be an ordinary human and sin like us if he was virgin born? A fluke? No. Wouldn’t it be logical to believe that he was not a “hybrid of human and unknown” but human AND divine because he told us himself? Yes it would.

Bread changes into the body of jesus: I don’t want to go into detail but there’s plenty of readings explaining it. I think you are just mis-interpreting. Look up Transubstantiation and read more into it.
By the way the wine IS wine and the bread IS bread, and the wine IS his blood and the bread IS his body after the blessing. Just read more about it. At least give it some thought and a chance before taking a side.

An all-powerful God listens to everybody’s prayers and chooses to grant some people’s wishes:

Why would God spoil his children? Would you spoil yours or your future children?

Even some legit prayers that are not answered have a reason that is mysterious to us. All we know is that more good can come out of it even when it doesn’t seem to. I’ve had devastation happen to me and I didn’t know the reason or even think of how better I came to be or what I truly learned until more than a few years later.

-Spiritual (aka invisible) beings roam the earth helping and hurting people- Do you believe in the laws of physics? ( it is the scripture so to say of atheists)

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated, although it may change forms

When we die where does our energy go?

It’s been proven that there are more dimensions than 4 and there could be many planes of existence we are not aware of.

It’s a pending theory of science proving life after death but it’s not entirely finished.

-God speaks directly to very few people, often those who don’t appear to be mentally stable:

Can you prove that? I’ve had God talk to me and I am completely stable (I’m pretty sure). Never had that voice in your head? That know or feeling that something is right or something is wrong? Never?

Hope this opens up a door into further investigation for you. It really is worth it. I grew up scientific minded since I was 4. I’m an engineering student with a sound knowledge of physics and mathematics that is being increased by the year. I’m very open minded and I research something new everyday. I took the stance of an atheist for a week maybe to see how life went. It was missing a lot of things.

Good luck to you!

 

[chaz0426]

I like this site pointed out by R McGeddon:

American Atheists: Coming Out - Atheism: The Other Closet

Now that’s a profession of faith, if I ever seen one

---

Anyways, to answer the original topic. Around 10 years ago, back in oh-so-liberal University of the Philippines, for so many reasons, most of which I could not even put into words no matter how I try, I became an atheist.

Well, it all lasted for one month. What I saw by then was that the atheist position is logical. VERY logical. The problem is that the logic becomes too logical, and logic becomes the only thing you have.

Look at what I lost when I became an atheist:

1. I lost one (or more, depending on how many gods I believe) BIG Someone to be thankful – or blame – for everything.
2. I lost the right to choose where I go eventually. As a theist, I can go to Heaven or to Hell, or to Purgatory, or to another someone when I reincarnate…depends on my belief. But as an atheist? I just embrace darkness when I die. Pfft, boring.
3. I lost the right to believe in something that cannot be proven. Of course, I hate to have the right to believe that 1+1=11, or that a circle has 10 sides, or other things to that effect, but the right to believe that there’s an angel on my right shoulder and a devil on my left, or not? I DEMAND that. I demand the right to believe that pigs can fly…eventually. That I can believe in Santa Claus when I want to, then disbelieve when I don’t…especially if I have been naughty. I demand I can believe a girl can have babies without having sex (oh yeah, we have artificial insemination…oh well). I demand that I can believe Someone out there listens to me when I am alone and distraught. I demand to believe that there is a Cause to everything, or not.
4. I lost the right to be loyal – or disloyal – to an Eternal Cause. Goodness! How romantic it is to be a loyal soldier to an Eternal General …and to be a rebel against a Cause greater than the universe!

In other words, I lost so much that to me were many things that made life worth living. All for logic.

And you know the funny thing is? When I truly embraced my Catholic heritage, especially its mysteries, I never lost my logic. In fact, it made logic oh so more worthwhile, and oh so more valuable. And, it made life oh so more worthwhile, and oh so more valuable.

I have so much to say, but I have to go. But the moral I gained in those roughly four weeks I will never forget, and I will share it with you — just in case you didn’t get what I want to drive at.

Whether atheism is logical or not is irrelevant, for logic can actually support both ways (theism and atheism, I mean). But to live for logic only, either as a theist or an atheist, is not a life worth living. But to be a mystic AND a logician…THAT is a life worth living. And a life worth living IS relevant.

Amen brother

 

[CentralFLJames]

Even highly regarded atheist philosophers have glommed onto the fact that Atheism is illogical. Here is how Antony Flew finally saw the light so to speak and became a Deist recently.

In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that “I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.”. Flew also said: “**My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species **… [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”

Flews rejection of Atheism has outraged atheists who have always held him up as a natural leader for their own beliefs. They are trying to accuse him of being old and manipulable and subject to brainwashing etc. But in his most recent 2007 interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his “growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.” In addition, he rejected Richard Dawkins’ effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” “If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over.”

Atheism has reached it nexus of disbelief and is declining rapidly as more intelligent people start to see the absurdity and pathetic emptiness of it all.

James

 

[packermann]

Given that subjective nature of spiritual experiences, you’d be hard-pressed it has any relation to an objective truth.

I think you are misunderstanding the argument.

Atheists are materialists - everything is material. Since they are materialists they deny the existence of the spiritual realm. Since they deny the spiritual realm they deny the existence of the soul. Since there is no soul, there is no Mind that exists over and beyond the physical brain.

But if there is no Mind then man is incapable to freely inquire and to use reason to freely come up with rational conclusions. All this has already been biological determined. A mere thought is a product of random electrical impulses going on his head. Only the physical brain exists. There is no such thing as the mind existing.

But this is a contradiction. If thoughts are only a product of random electrical impulses that pass through your brain, then how can you trust your thoughts? So what is the point of this forum? What is the point of discussing anything with anyone? What we think has all been randomly determined. I am a believer because my electrical impulses zigged and you are a non-believer because yours zagged. There would be no point for two beings programmed with random beliefs to discuss whose belief is correct. Whatever outcome of that discussion would itself be determined by chance. There would also be no point to science. All scientific inquiry and concusions are from our thoughts that are randomly determined by the electric impulses in our brains. So how can we trust that these thoughts have any bearing to objective reality?

Of course, you can deny that all our thoughts are mere products of the random workings of the brain. You can say that we choose to think, and then the electrical impulses exist in our brain, instead of vice versa. But to say that we think BEFORE the electrical impulses in our physical brain occurrs, is to say that our thinking exists over and beyond the inner workings of the physical brain. That would mean that the Mind, apart from the brain, exists. That would mean that the world is not completely materialistic. That would mean that the non-physical Mind exists. Another word for Mind which we use is the word soul. So then if the soul exists, then the spiritual exists.

 

[Awake]

Atheism is completely sound and for the most part logical but has a fundamental flaw that I can’t grasp. Sure atheism has a sound stance and belief that follows logical regression based on science alone.

However in my opinion it misses the blatant obvious. The obvious when you look at a star filled sky at night. The obvious when you look at the mountains, the atmosphere, the trees, the animals, society, and most important US. Sure this could be the result of a completely random “spark” so to say. But where a fallacy and where it gets illogical is where did that spark come from? The logical path atheisim follows is contradicted in that “spark” or the big bang theory. Notice how when we get to the creation of the universe even through science, most of everything in that realm are still “theories” meaning “not proven”. And the illogical nature of atheism is coming from the fact how they believe things are a cause of a cause. However when we get to that “spark” what is the cause? We simply do not know. Even the big bang THEORY at the beginning is a complete mystery that may not even ever be proven at all. Thats why it’s illogical to believe that everything is a cause of a cause because it continues until infinity meaning it’s ever ending, well how believable is that? It’s logical that there is a “source of everything” and that is God.

Basically, it comes down to is the question of what was before the beginning? Atheists will say that’s not a logical question. The beginning, by definition, is the point at which no previous events could have occurred. Theists will argue that there must be something before the beginning of the universe, so they assign this task to God. However, once theists are faced with the same question of what came before God, they can’t answer it. The only response they can come up with is that God is outside of time, and therefore the same question doesn’t count.

My second argument is pure mathematics. When you look at everything today that is created. The perfection, the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, our physiology and even our psychology how could you believe that is a completely random event?

Ok, lets follow that that “spark” was just THERE it just happened out of the blue and caused all of this. What are the mathematical odds that the linear regression of universal creation led to a blue earth supported by rational and emotionaly intelligent beings? Odds of that spark spontaneously happening = very low
Odds of the first atoms forming into hydrogen, helium, and the rest of the elements in regression = extremely low
Odds of that forming stars and galaxies and planets = googolplex (10^10^100)

Get the idea, I could keep going into the formation of earths and intelligent beings but it would be really long.

Basically the odds are infinetly small of the reality that we know it being “spontaneous”

Sure maybe it could be but would it be logical to buy a lottery ticket worth your soul itself on an infinitely small number? Any true logical person wouldn’t. Not that you should believe in God just on that fact but by the fact that he delivered pure truth through his son 2000 years ago. Why do things have to be “proven” to believable. What is a world with no faith? Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? I haven’t, does that mean they don’t exist? No. Were you alive during the civil war? Well if you were then call the guinness group and get into the book. Because why do you have to “see” to believe.

Now to what you stated about our faith. I think you have a lot of misunderstandings in what we believe. And that is common. 5 years ago I was questioning the same things prior to confirmation. Is this right? How is this logical? How can that happen? Well are we suppose to know everything? We never will. We will never know 0.01% of the universe, it’s laws, everything.

First of all, as an engineering student I’m sure you have studied quantum physics; and you must know that at the quantum level of the universe, true randomness occurs.

Secondly, evolution of life is a whole different story. It’s not just a matter of pure chance.

Thirdly, the anthropic principle doesn’t prove anything. Just because a lot of variables went into the universe as we perceive it today, does not necessarily mean that there was a reason for those variables to be aligned the way they are.

For instance, if I were to shuffle a deck of cards and then look at the way the cards are organized, I could calculate the odds of the cards turning up in that exact order. I would notice that the odds would be extremely small (1 in 8.06 x 10^67), but yet the cards still exist as in the order they do. Does that mean that there is some reason the cards to appear in that order because the odds are so incredibly small? No, my shuffling was random. The same can be said about the universe. The odds of our universe existing as it is today is incredibly small, but yet it exists. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is a reason for the universe to exist the way it is today just because the odds are small.

The virgin birth: Can it be proven? It has in animals. In people no it can’t. But it’s reasonable to believe based on all biblical records mention it firmly. Wouldn’t it be logical to believe jesus was special if he was virgin born? Why would he be an ordinary human and sin like us if he was virgin born? A fluke? No. Wouldn’t it be logical to believe that he was not a “hybrid of human and unknown” but human AND divine because he told us himself? Yes it would.

Historical records of Jesus are sketchy. Much of what is written was written well after his death and many of the reports are contradictory. Although there almost certainly existed a person named Jesus, historical evidence does not “firmly” prove a virgin birth.

Bread changes into the body of jesus: I don’t want to go into detail but there’s plenty of readings explaining it. I think you are just mis-interpreting. Look up Transubstantiation and read more into it.
By the way the wine IS wine and the bread IS bread, and the wine IS his blood and the bread IS his body after the blessing. Just read more about it. At least give it some thought and a chance before taking a side.

I am well aware of the doctrine of transubstantiation. You may believe it or you may not, but it takes a lot of faith to believe you are actually eating the body and blood of Christ because it is very illogical.

An all-powerful God listens to everybody’s prayers and chooses to grant some people’s wishes:

Why would God spoil his children? Would you spoil yours or your future children?

Even some legit prayers that are not answered have a reason that is mysterious to us. All we know is that more good can come out of it even when it doesn’t seem to. I’ve had devastation happen to me and I didn’t know the reason or even think of how better I came to be or what I truly learned until more than a few years later.

A rather convenient response: when something happens that follows what we prayed for, it’s an act of God. But when we pray for something and it doesn’t happen, it’s a mystery. The same line of thinking has been used throughout history to explain things like alchemy and magic.

-Spiritual (aka invisible) beings roam the earth helping and hurting people- Do you believe in the laws of physics? ( it is the scripture so to say of atheists)

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated, although it may change forms

When we die where does our energy go?

It’s been proven that there are more dimensions than 4 and there could be many planes of existence we are not aware of.

It’s a pending theory of science proving life after death but it’s not entirely finished.

When a living being dies, its energy gets transformed into another form of energy. Biology, chemistry, and physics can show this.

But I was actually referring to the Catholic teaching of angels and demons.

-God speaks directly to very few people, often those who don’t appear to be mentally stable:

Can you prove that? I’ve had God talk to me and I am completely stable (I’m pretty sure). Never had that voice in your head? That know or feeling that something is right or something is wrong? Never?

I have never had God speak directly to me, and I am pretty sure that most people haven’t either. Those who claim they have heard his voice speaking to them, I suspect it was simply their minds playing tricks on them. Everybody has a conscience, but that doesn’t mean that God is speaking to you.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Are you sure? Are you making a claim of infallability?

??

In saying their assertions could be wrong are you admitting that Atheists are fallable? Please explain the logic by which a fallable person or group of persons sharing common belief can make absolute assertions while at the same time admitting they are fallable? This sounds illogical.

Who is making absolute assertions?

For the sake of argument illustration, I temporarily extended the benefit of the doubt that the Atheist is rational and consistent. Under an assumption of rational thought (which admittedly does not seem too warranted) the semantics are nearly equivalent if not identical. Are you admitting that there are irrational Atheists who go about saying they do not believe in God while allowing for the possibility that there might be a God? I thought that was the difference between an atheist and an agnostics. Are you suggesting that Atheist are not closed to the notion that there is a God. If so, then why do they call themselves Atheists and not agnostics?

As I’ve previously said, I lean toward atheism but I also accept the possibility that there might be a god. That is not being irrational.

Strictly speaking everybody is agnostic. This is based on the fact that the word agnostic is taken from the Greek agnostos which means unknown. Nobody truly knows if there is a god.

But it was positive spin to give the benefit of the doubt in the face of apparent irrational behavior. If Atheists want to reject that then they need to state what they all believe. How many do you imagine there are and will they all say the same thing?

I suspect that there are more atheists than we are lead to believe. They more than likely don’t say the same thing, just like catholics don’t all say the same thing.

I thought you just said to me that you were not a spokesperson for Atheists.

That’s right, I’m not.

I know some atheists who say “there is no God”. Are you calling them poorly educated atheists or false atheists? Who decides what an orthodox atheist says and thinks?

It was you that said all atheists assert there is no god. It was I that disputed this.

Should I take your word at it? I object anyway since I think it is.

You don’t have to take my word, just look up the meaning.

There you go making assertions again. It seems to me that atheist like to bandy about absolute statements. I thought you admitted to being fallable. How do I know that this is not the current case?

Being fallible doesn’t mean I can’t make some assertions.

Why not give me YOUR take on what atheism means?

Here goes:
In Greek adding “A” to the beginning of a word, is equal in English to putting “without” or “un” in front of a word. Therefore, theism = having a belief there is a god, becomes atheism = without the belief there is a god.

You seem to have made that case for me already by asserting that Atheists do not believe what theists assert while admitting that theists say many contradictory things. A definition of atheistic belief formed around the negation of a pluralistic belief seems to be illogical.

I disagree.

What do you assert that Theists assert?

I make no such assertion.

Are you admitting that people who call themselves Atheists all don’t believe that there is no God? Don’t you think its illogical for someone to call themselves an atheist if they believe in God?

I haven’t said any such thing.

I disagree.

You would.

That is faulty reasoning that does not follow. The form of the assertion takes on an absolute on the assumption that absolutes exist. It seems to me that atheists assert absolutes in relative terms (negation of other’s beliefs) on the assumption that there are no absolutes. That is illogical.

It seems to me that you’re making assumptions as well.

It is rational. Let’s get into it.

Pascal’s wager is irrational because it doesn’t take into account all the other religions that exist, unless you’re suggesting that they all should be followed, just in case. Besides, don’t you think that a god would see straight through someone who was merely hedging their bets?

I can not accept that merit since it gains me nothing in the next life and is of no consequence to me in this life

That is rather a mercenary attitude.

except perhaps in gaining credibility for objectivity in persuading you to my assertion that atheists are illogical. Even in that persuasion it is really only intended as a means to get the atheist to become logical

I reject your assertion that atheists are illogical.

and consider that it is a much better position to be a Theist.

That is opinion not fact.

I accept that you do not agree with my opinion. But I think I have shown more cases for illogical attribution to atheists than you have for Theists. I really think that the final case is made here in atheists holding to a no-way-to-win bet with no compelling evidence or reason to do so.

I disagree.

How does one became a faithful atheist? What drives them?

Faithful atheist? Now that is an oxymoron.

 

[chaz0426]

Basically, it comes down to is the question of what was before the beginning? Atheists will say that’s not a logical question. The beginning, by definition, is the point at which no previous events could have occurred. Theists will argue that there must be something before the beginning of the universe, so they assign this task to God. However, once theists are faced with the same question of what came before God, they can’t answer it. The only response they can come up with is that God is outside of time, and therefore the same question doesn’t count.

First of all, as an engineering student I’m sure you have studied quantum physics; and you must know that at the quantum level of the universe, true randomness occurs.

Secondly, evolution of life is a whole different story. It’s not just a matter of pure chance.

Thirdly, the anthropic principle doesn’t prove anything. Just because a lot of variables went into the universe as we perceive it today, does not necessarily mean that there was a reason for those variables to be aligned the way they are.

For instance, if I were to shuffle a deck of cards and then look at the way the cards are organized, I could calculate the odds of the cards turning up in that exact order. I would notice that the odds would be extremely small (1 in 8.06 x 10^67), but yet the cards still exist as in the order they do. Does that mean that there is some reason the cards to appear in that order because the odds are so incredibly small? No, my shuffling was random. The same can be said about the universe. The odds of our universe existing as it is today is incredibly small, but yet it exists. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is a reason for the universe to exist the way it is today just because the odds are small.

Historical records of Jesus are sketchy. Much of what is written was written well after his death and many of the reports are contradictory. Although there almost certainly existed a person named Jesus, historical evidence does not “firmly” prove a virgin birth.

I am well aware of the doctrine of transubstantiation. You may believe it or you may not, but it takes a lot of faith to believe you are actually eating the body and blood of Christ because it is very illogical.

A rather convenient response: when something happens that follows what we prayed for, it’s an act of God. But when we pray for something and it doesn’t happen, it’s a mystery. The same line of thinking has been used throughout history to explain things like alchemy and magic.

When a living being dies, its energy gets transformed into another form of energy. Biology, chemistry, and physics can show this.

But I was actually referring to the Catholic teaching of angels and demons.

I have never had God speak directly to me, and I am pretty sure that most people haven’t either. Those who claim they have heard his voice speaking to them, I suspect it was simply their minds playing tricks on them. Everybody has a conscience, but that doesn’t mean that God is speaking to you.

you are right in saying that the draw of one set of cards doesn’t mean there is a reason behind it. what I propose is that the likelyhood of it being a random progression of events is small. I am familiar with quantum physics, however physics isn’t my major so im not an expert at it.

Awake, what it boils down to is faith. I could propose many reasons for my faith both scientifically and spiritually for days here and not convince you. I really can’t explain it but I just know and feel with my heart and soul that there is a God and he sent his son 2000 years ago.

just read a little more and find answers for yourself, it may take years but I went through the same thing 5 years ago.

 

[Awake]

you are right in saying that the draw of one set of cards doesn’t mean there is a reason behind it. what I propose is that the likelyhood of it being a random progression of events is small. I am familiar with quantum physics, however physics isn’t my major so im not an expert at it.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here… Can you clarify?

Awake, what it boils down to is faith. I could propose many reasons for my faith both scientifically and spiritually for days here and not convince you. I really can’t explain it but I just know and feel with my heart and soul that there is a God and he sent his son 2000 years ago.

You’re right, it does come down to faith.

The main question of this thread is if atheism is illogical. My answer is no, atheism is very logical. Catholicism is what is illogical. Without Catholicism, nobody would propose that eating bread would actually be eating the flesh of a man who was born 2000 years ago. I’m not saying it is right or wrong, but that it inheritely goes against all of our logic. And that’s why it requires faith. It doesn’t take any faith to be an atheist because atheism is grounded in logic.